Creationist is biology a science or what?
We cant really separate evolution from biology. Thats like separating spacetime from physics. If evolution is really the devils conspiracy then what is biology. Should we re-classify biology from being a science to: theology, mysticism, bs?
What do you think of the statement: “Neither creation nor what evolutionists call macroevolution are observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus do not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory, but are both accepted by faith by the believers”?
Exactly the same thing is true of the US Civil War.It’s not observable today.It’s not repeatable—even the hardest-core re-enactors can’t repeat the whole thing exactly as it was. Sure, maybe they can re-enact one lousy battle, which is micro-Civil-War-ution. But they can never repeat the macro-Civil-War-ution.And it’s not refutable by experiment. Name me one scientist who’s ever done one lab experiment to test the US Civil War. See?So the whole thing has to be taken on faith by believers. It’s all just this made-up cult—and all those old daguerrotypes and battlefields and old newspapers and stuff were planted by the Devil to test our faith.Heck, the same is true of the existence of Al Berglund’s great-grandparents. No one can observe them today; we certainly can’t repeat them; and no experiment can demonstrate them. So clearly, the idea that Al Berglund ever had any great-grandparents just has to be taken on faith by believers in macro-Berglund-ution.But seriously, folks. . .Evolution deals with history. If I could describe the entire field while standing on one leg, I’d say something like “All life has a long history, and we can trace the consequences of that history today, even though we’ll never know every detail.” Like historians, some of us evolutionary biologists develop models of the past—reconstructions of the Battle of Shiloh, or of the late Ediacaran ecosystem of the White Sea—and test those against various lines of evidence. If you’re going to argue that that is intrinsically an invalid exercise, then you have to admit that the same thing is true of any attempt to understand any historical event—whether it’s the existence of Great-Grandpa Berglund, the Civil War, or anything else in the past. (And lest you think I’m goofing, some people do that. Denying the existence of the US Civil War sounds ridiculous. But denying the existence of the Holocaust is practically a cottage industry for professional asshats—and I’m not the only one who’s noticed a strong family resemblance between the rhetorical strategies of young-earth creationists and those of Holocaust deniers. How do you know? Were you there?)So in answer to your question: I think the statement is dumber than a bag of porcelain hammers.
POLL: Do You Accept Creationism or Believe In Evolution...?
I accept Creationism, and I always will. And I got a 86% final mark on my AP Biology class =) hell yeah :) So I'm not some dumb religious Christian...let's see you get those marks in a AP bio class. 95% of Atheists don't even know what evolution is...so sad. I bet you couldn't even explain Darwin's theory, Evolotion, Adaptation, the process of Natural selection, the preservation of the favoured species, or ANYTHING! Oh and don't bother explaining it to me, you'll just google it :)lol
Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution?
@Gentleman Jack Diversity could have developed quickly through the fact of mutation. @Dreamstuff I'm disappointed that you don't know that 30% of all valid, scientific observations support a 10,1000 year old earth. @SpartanC Fossils can move around with major plate tectonic upheavals. @Acid Zebra What you say is true, but try to lay off that stuff.... @Vinnie I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about. Agreed. @Lord Fluffy Tale Your answer is the most sensible. Dating methods are only valid up to about 2,000 years ago. The scientific community will admit that if pushed. @Fatcat Repent and beg God to forgive you then tell me there is no proof.
Science and Religion: Do evolutionists find biology just as interesting as creationists?
My answer: some probably do and and some probably don't. My first issue with this question: evolution is not a blind ideology, so to compare "Evolutionists" to "Creationists" creates both a false equivalency and a false dichotomy. It is quite possible to both believe in a binding universal consciousness that perhaps even originated the whole darn thing and to believe that once the first event occurred that a chain of unpredictable events was set in motion that can be discovered, explored, and understood.My second issue with this question: whether or not someone believes in a God or several Gods has nothing whatsoever to do with a person's ability to revere beauty, experience awe, and revel in a sense of the -- dare I say it -- miraculous.My third issue with this question: Any study of biology by anyone of any philosophical orientation will reveal that no two living things (even ones that appear incredibly similar) are exactly alike. To lump together all people who are currently convinced, based on the best available evidence, that present-day living beings evolved over time through observable mechanisms such as natural selection is as foolish as lumping together all people who count themselves as members of highly organized monotheistic religions. In order to answer this question, one must at least temporarily accept the premise that all creationists find biology interestingTo anyone wondering this, here's a question in return: do you think that Richard Dawkins finds biology as interesting as Pope Benedict XVI (pope)? As he is a professional biologist, I'm betting he finds biology plenty interesting.